Who rates higher all time- Becker or Edberg?

[BGod]

I always ranked Edberg above Becker, if ever so slightly but right now I need to confirm.

Weeks at Top 5
Becker: 476
Edberg: 434

Becker had 32 more weeks at #2 while Edberg had 60 more weeks at #1. I know it seems cut and dry going off that but Becker's 25-10 record is noteworthy as unlike the Nadal/Federer matchups, these guys were of the same era. A couple other things to remember:

Edberg won 1 WTF and made 1 more Final. Becker won 3 WTFs and made 5 more Finals.
Edberg won the Aussie Open early in his career and at a time it was still weak and skipped. Beat Wilander and Cash for it.

 

[fhdowntheline]

People seem to prefer to watch Edberg play, but seem to prefer Becker win! Thats pretty much the substance of the matter. Edberg had the more aesthetic game (aside that forehand) , but Becker was always regarded as a more dangerous (if somewhat volatile) opponent. It was the volatility that made him famous. I think shot for shot, Lendl was better than him , and Edberg was a better mover. But that restless energy that Becker brought to the court was incredible. He could create a devastating set of points and equally, some incredbily mediocre ones too. His physical conditioning also seemed inconsistent from time to time.

 

[BGod]

Yeah I've decided:

1. Federer
2. Borg
3. Sampras
4. Lendl
5. Nadal
6. Connors
7. McEnroe
8. Djokovic
9. Agassi
10. Becker

 

[Djokovic2011]

Yeah I've decided:

1. Federer
2. Borg
3. Sampras
4. Lendl
5. Nadal
6. Connors
7. McEnroe
8. Djokovic
9. Agassi
10. Becker

Why do have Lendl ranked so high? I'm guessing because of all the time he spent at #1?

 

[mattosgrant]

Lendl being over Nadal is proposterous. Sorry there are no other words for it. I spit out my drink laughing at the very suggestion.

I wouldnt even have Lendl above Connors personally. I see no real advantage he has on Connors in fact, other than a few more slam finals, but Connors has the advantage in most all else.

 

[California]

Edberg was my favorite player obviously, but I liked Becker very much as well. Both are in my top 5 players of all time, not the best of all time but my favorites. Very close to call with 6 majors each, but the head to head is hard to ignore... with the added doubles record of Edberg helping him some, although if he was able to win that French against Chang and the retired Aussie Open final against Lendl he would have an advantage, but I am sure you can say the same about Becker having near wins in majors... I am going with Edberg in my less than objective opinion. Becker in the zone did have an amazing game with a bigger serve and forehand, and was one of the best fast court/indoor carpet players I have ever seen. Edberg seemed more well rounded and player better on clay than Becker. Both were fun to watch, I miss them with today's baseline play....

 

[KG1965]

Career:
Edberg 8
Becker 8,5

 

[hoodjem]

I like those 3 players you mentioned too much to blame them, although you are probably right they are the main culprits, so I instead choose to blame someone I dont particularly like- Nick Bolletieri. :twisted:

I like them a lot also.

Okay, I'll blame Bow-tie, too.

 

[haecceitas]

Edberg, beacuse he is Federer coach.

 

[BGod]

Why do have Lendl ranked so high? I'm guessing because of all the time he spent at #1?

Absolutely. The 270 weeks is 3rd all time but he also is 3rd in consecutive weeks at #1, Top 2 and is 2nd above Federer in consecutive weeks at Top 3 just behind Connors.

That kind of consistency and his 6 WTFs (best of 5 set finals) puts him ahead of Nadal for me. In time more people will see it my way when you factor in Nadal's predominantly clay court achievements. He only had 3 multi-Slam seasons. Really if you just look at his non-French Majors, he's WELL below Lendl overall. Lendl's 8 consecutive U.S. Open Finals might never be broken at any Slam.

 

[BGod]

Lendl being over Nadal is proposterous. Sorry there are no other words for it. I spit out my drink laughing at the very suggestion.

I wouldnt even have Lendl above Connors personally. I see no real advantage he has on Connors in fact, other than a few more slam finals, but Connors has the advantage in most all else.

You see 14>8 Slams for Nadal.
I see 6>0 WTFs and 129 more weeks at #1 for Lendl.

I wait to see what the laughable part of my ranking is....

 

[mattosgrant]

So 6 WTFs are comparable to 6 extra slams. Also missing the WTF title is comparable to missing Wimbledon. Sorry but you are ********.

I can tell you that you are probably the only person on the planet who thinks Lendl ranks higher all time than Nadal, including the biggest Lendl fanboys and Nadal haters out there.

 

[mattosgrant]

Like I said there is little basis to even rank Lendl over Connors. Weeks at #1 is really a tie (268 and 270), but Connors has a far longer streak of most consecutive weeks at #1. Connors has more years ended ranked #1 than Lendl does (6 to 4, and both some questionable ones so wont get into that). Connors has won the big 2 slams of his era 7 times, vs Lendl a combined 3 times with no Wimbledon. Lendl played in an era he played all the slams regularly and still only won 8, while Connors almost never played the Australian and was banned from the French in his prime (74-78) and still won 8. Connors also has the edge in titles (109 to 94). Connors has the edge in longevity obviously. Lendl has more slam finals which is really his only edge in anything, but that is partly a source of embarassment, being an 8 slam winner with a losing record in slam finals. Connors has more slam semis. Tennis Channel ranked Lendl lower than Agassi, LOL!

There is no planet any 8 slam winner would rank higher than any 14 slam winner in the "4 slams count for all era", particularly when the former is the one without a Wimbledon or career slam, and both were only the #1 player 3 years really (everyone knows Lendl ranking over Becker at the end of 89 is a farce).

 

[BGod]

Okay, it's hard to have a civil debate when one person is calling the other "********" or "moron" and making assumptions that he is alone on an island with his opinion.

I have academically debated far more serious issues than tennis rankings. Sports rankings are extremely subjective for 3 reasons:

1. Who is considered better at their peak.
2. Who had the better career.
3. Who had better competition.

With #1 it's Rafael Nadal. With #2 and #3 I'd argue Lendl.

To me the guy ranked 270 weeks to 141 had the better career. Lendl also sits 2nd all time in consecutive weeks at Top 3, way, WAY above Nadal.

Nadal's Slam spread of 9-2-2-1 is by a margin the most lopsided of any of the Top 10 often considered in the Open Era. His Finals spread is 9-5-3-3.


Now just because casual tennis fans are so obsessed with Slam count doesn't mean it is in line with general sports recognition. Sandy Koufax for example is often considered one of the 3 best pitchers ever despite a short career and "only" 4 World Series titles. Dan Marino never won a Super Bowl and often ranked ahead of Bradshaw, etc.

Ivan Lendl was ranked the best player in the world by 91.5% over Nadal. This is significant.

The WTF in Lendl's time was a best of 5 set final, he won the Masters Grand Prix 5 times and then the WCT Finals was a best of 5 set tournament from the quarters to finals and he won that twice. Lendl also retired with the most Masters titles until Nadal recently broke it by a couple. In terms of careers, Lendl is a good head above Nadal with his absences.

So yeah, I think all those weeks at #1, Top 3, 5 Grand Prix and 2 WCTs makes up for the 6 less Slams than Nadal.

Then let's also not forget Nadal's 9 French Opens came against Federer x4 but also Djokovic, Ferrer, Puerta and Soderling.

Ivan Lendl's 11 Slam Final Losses:
Becker x3
Wilander x3
Connors x2
Borg
McEnroe
Cash

Cash is the only outlier, on grass. Becker was the successor generation.

I'll agree with you that Connors is close to Lendl and although I completely understand he would have won more Slams had he competed, we can only go off of what he actually did. Remember he lost to a 35 year old Ashe in a Wimbledon Final and other sad losses. He lost a lot of matches he should of won, arguably more than Lendl.

 

[fezer]

its an endless discussion. very good reasons for both players.

i voted for becker, because im a fan. but i really appreciate edberg.
i watched nearly every match they played.
i will try to bring some new points into discussion.
i am not surprised with edberg leading the poll, because the swede always looked more sympathetic
and always had the admiration of tennis experts on his side.
edberg will always be remembered for his fluent stylish way of playing and for the matches he won - esp the wimbledon finals vs becker and uso vs sampras/courier. becker otoh will always be critizised for all the chances he missed, because expectations went through the roof in 85. and by tennis experts he was disliked for his powerful style and for being a teen phenomenon.

here are my pros and cons for them.

1. grand slam tournaments
6 titles for both players. if you sum up finals/semis/quarters edberg has a very very slight edge.
imo thats not sufficient. of course edberg made a roland garros final, becker didnt. becker has 3 semifinal showings - not so bad (given that some people think the german couldnt even hit a single ball on clay...)
becker has 3 wimbledon crowns edberg has 2 - and wimbledon still is and by even greater extent was in the 80s the most prestigious and important title in tennis, which might let the pendulum swing more into beckers direction.
edbergs australian titles were won when the australian open didnt have regained a status of the other grand slam tournaments. less pize money and still a depleted field - remember edberg had a bye in the first round when he won in 85!!!
for me they are absolutely tied as far as their achievements in grand slam tournaments are concerned

2. masters/wtf/wtc championships
the big indoor tournaments are the next category for me. during the 80s the masters and the dallas event certainly overshadowed esp the australian open. even in 88 when wilander won the ao, he earned 100k in two weeks, becker made 200k by winning the wct in one week. just take a look who was playing there.
becker won the masters 3 times and the wct-dallas-event in 88, made 5 finals at the masters/wtf
edberg won the masters in 89, one final in dallas
becker wins this point

3. the rankings
edberg certainly has more weeks at no1 and was yeno1 twice.
that must be credited. edberg wins here.
if you count who was ranked higher year-by-year (84-97) they are pretty close.

4. h2h
becker leads the series - edberg won 3/4 of the matches at grand-slam-tournaments. i think you have to take the davis-cup matches as well as the dallas/masters/wtf-matches into the consideration. becker def edberg in all davis-cup-encounters, becker wins dallas, edberg the masters final.

how important davis cup was back then? in 89 becker tanked his year-end-no1 for the davis cup. after winning the uso becker skipped sidney, tokyo and stockholm (titles he won before) and returned late for the paris indoor tournament. for me, he wanted be inform at the davis cup final and not running out fo gas. becker won paris, made the masters final and won all three matches in the davis cup final!

becker wins all the matches from 91 stockholm on gives him the edge.

5. titles/overall performance
becker has 7 tournament wins more, which is more than 15% more - a significant edge.
but edberg won titles on all surfaces, becker has no clay title. unless becker made all 1000 masters finals on clay(monte carlo, rome, hamburg).
edberg seemed to be more consistent, becker could reach a higher level of play while being prone to losing early in tournaments.
becker really seemed finished in 93, had good comeback in 94-96 and was still a top-contender when sampras and agassi bloomed, edberg was better 90-92, but had nothing much left after 92 uso.
very close, but becker wins here

6. doubles
noone talking about doubles here? but tennis is a sport that is still played in singles and doubles.
edberg was no1 in singles and doubles! had grand-slam-tournament wins! and was certainly one of the best!
the swede wins here pretty easily.
bur becker was also a very decent doubles player. won barcelona gold medal (w stich) and beat edberg in both davis-cup-encounters. boris never had a strong and constant partner as edberg had (ie jarryd).

after all becker wins a very very close race for me. but no problem for me, if other fans and experts look at things from a different perspective.
deep down inside i think, edberg (more than agassi and sampras) was the reason why becker under achieved. becker was a service break up in the 5th set in rg98 and wimb90 - if boris wins both matches...

 

[California]

Good analysis, enjoyed the read.

 

[mattosgrant]

Okay, it's hard to have a civil debate when one person is calling the other "********" or "moron" and making assumptions that he is alone on an island with his opinion.

I have academically debated far more serious issues than tennis rankings. Sports rankings are extremely subjective for 3 reasons:

1. Who is considered better at their peak.
2. Who had the better career.
3. Who had better competition.

With #1 it's Rafael Nadal. With #2 and #3 I'd argue Lendl.

To me the guy ranked 270 weeks to 141 had the better career. Lendl also sits 2nd all time in consecutive weeks at Top 3, way, WAY above Nadal.

Nadal's Slam spread of 9-2-2-1 is by a margin the most lopsided of any of the Top 10 often considered in the Open Era. His Finals spread is 9-5-3-3.


Now just because casual tennis fans are so obsessed with Slam count doesn't mean it is in line with general sports recognition. Sandy Koufax for example is often considered one of the 3 best pitchers ever despite a short career and "only" 4 World Series titles. Dan Marino never won a Super Bowl and often ranked ahead of Bradshaw, etc.

Ivan Lendl was ranked the best player in the world by 91.5% over Nadal. This is significant.

The WTF in Lendl's time was a best of 5 set final, he won the Masters Grand Prix 5 times and then the WCT Finals was a best of 5 set tournament from the quarters to finals and he won that twice. Lendl also retired with the most Masters titles until Nadal recently broke it by a couple. In terms of careers, Lendl is a good head above Nadal with his absences.

So yeah, I think all those weeks at #1, Top 3, 5 Grand Prix and 2 WCTs makes up for the 6 less Slams than Nadal.

Then let's also not forget Nadal's 9 French Opens came against Federer x4 but also Djokovic, Ferrer, Puerta and Soderling.

Ivan Lendl's 11 Slam Final Losses:
Becker x3
Wilander x3
Connors x2
Borg
McEnroe
Cash

Cash is the only outlier, on grass. Becker was the successor generation.

I'll agree with you that Connors is close to Lendl and although I completely understand he would have won more Slams had he competed, we can only go off of what he actually did. Remember he lost to a 35 year old Ashe in a Wimbledon Final and other sad losses. He lost a lot of matches he should of won, arguably more than Lendl.

I can appreciate the argument slam count isnt everything but there is still NO WAY that a person with 8 slams is greater or ranks above one with 14 when both were in the "4 slams are all fully relevant" days. Maybe you could argue Borg with 11 slams (although he didnt play in the 4 slams are all fully relevant time as Lendl did) might have a case against Nadal. I wouldnt agree, but I could see it. Lendl a huge no and 99.99999% of people would agree with me on that.

6 extra slams + Career Slam >>>>>> 130 weeks at #1 + 6 WTF. It isnt even close whatsoever. That isnt even considering Lendl had some undeserving time at #1 (spending a ton of time at #1 in 88-90 when he wasnt at any point that period the best in the world, although early 88 makes sense with his 87 carryover points). When I compare them as being #1 I see both were the best player 3 different years- Nadal in 2008, 2010, 2013, Lendl from 1985-1987, and leave it at that.

Like I said I see little grounds Lendl should rank higher than Connors at all. I broke down comparing them in another thread, and it is clear to me even Connors has the edge on Lendl. Lendl has nothing on Connors other than a few more slam finals, which turns into a negative in another sense, being the only 8+ slam winner I know of, man or women, with a losing (8-11) record in slam finals which is kind of embarassing.

 

[BGod]

Lendl has nothing on Connors other than a few more slam finals, which turns into a negative in another sense, being the only 8+ slam winner I know of, man or women, with a losing (8-11) record in slam finals which is kind of embarassing.

Connors also only had 1 Grand Prix and 2 WCTs. But I already get you value those next to a recycling bin.

The 8-11 Finals record is easily explained by the opponents he faced as I pointed out. Becker prime for prime was one of the best, especially on grass. While Wilander had that run himself. It's bad timing. Nobody is going to call 19 Slams embarrassing but you. Sampras won two titles against Cedric Pioline and two against Goran. The 99.9% is getting old.

You simply value that extra win in a Slam run no matter anything else. 6 Slams as a margin is great when you're comparing Mats Wilander to Andy Roddick, not when you're looking at 8 Slams. Again, Nadal's Slam spread is 9-2-2-1. Many have argued his clay era was fairly weak with only Federer challenging him who was 5 years older and his worst surface. He beat Mariano Puerta, David Ferrer and Robin Soderling to get 3 of his titles. This is important information. You know why Nadal has 129 less weeks at #1 than Lendl? Cause he wasn't as consistent across all the events. That's why.

Nadal will always be a clay court specialist who was able to have limited success (ultimately 5 titles off clay) in a comparatively shallow era. History will show this. On paper it's nice seeing the same 4 guys making all the semifinals but in reality this screams weak field. That and monotone game styles. No serve and volley anymore right? That could throw a wrench into the Big 4 in the 90s for sure. Federer IS the GOAT but I understand the context in which he achieved his consistency records. A guy like Andy Murray being one of only 6 guys to make all 4 Slam Semifinals in a year speaks volumes, he didn't win a single title that season btw. Meanwhile Lendl played in a very strong era. He had McEnroe/Becker/Wilander/Edberg and saw the conclusion of Borg/Connors as well. He got beat by Sampras in 1990. The guy witnessed three different generations.

Look at it this way, how many Hall of Famers anywhere near their prime has Nadal faced in his career? Yeah, that's right.

 

[fezer]

Good analysis, enjoyed the read.

thank you.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

Nadal will always be a clay court specialist who was able to have limited success (ultimately 5 titles off clay)

How many titles off clay for Lendl? 5!

As much as it is ridiculous to consider that Lendl losing 11 slam finals a liability (especially considering who he faced), I can't agree at all with people who think it's a liability for Nadal to have won Roland Garros 9 times. He does have a skewed resume, but 5 non clay slams is huge. And he didn't win those against weak HC or grass court players.

I'm not a huge fan of the "strength of competition" because it's so hard to measure, but it seems crazy to me to use this theory against Nadal (or Lendl by the way).

 

[Fedinkum]

On Court: Becker (I was a huge fan of his type of tennis).
Off Court: Edberg by miles.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

6-6 in slams, Edberg more weeks at #1, and in my opinion a better pure tennis player.
Edberg is underrated.

Stefan would walk it home at Wimbledon the last couple of years.

 

[mattosgrant]

Look at it this way, how many Hall of Famers anywhere near their prime has Nadal faced in his career? Yeah, that's right.

Prime Nadal had to face prime (for awhile peak) Federer for many years, and lost a ton of time at #1 and some other titles because of it. Prime and post prime/slowed Nadal then had to face peak Djokovic for years, and lost a ton of time at #1 and titles because of it. Federer and Djokovic are both vastly superior overall to Wilander and mostly grass/carpet specialist (especialy during his rivalry with Lendl) Becker.

By contrast, Lendl didnt even start winning slams, apart from the 84 French, until McEnroe and Connors were clearly past their primes for good and would never seriously contender for another major, and Borg was long gone after his early retirement. So dont make me laugh on his competition. Connors himself spoke of Lendl vulturing the collapse of the big 3 and having failed to ever make it a big 4 himself at the 92 U.S Open.

No I dont value WTF titles next to a trash bin, but 6 slam titles is light years beyond 6 WTF titles. Only an idiot would fail to see such basic truth.

 

[mattosgrant]

How many titles off clay for Lendl? 5!

Haha good one. So in slams Lendl is just Nadal, except stratosphere inferior on clay. It is funny Nadal is basically punished by some only for being so much more amazing on clay than comparably much weaker people whose best surface is also probably clay like Lendl.

Not to mention Nadal lost 5 slam finals off clay to peak Federer or peak Djokovic. Lendl was losing to Becker in hard court slam finals and Cash in Wimbledon finals.

 

[California]

Becker wasn't fully awake for one of the Wimbledon finals so I wouldn't give Edberg too much credit for their 2-1 Wimby matchups. I don't remember exactly which Wimbledon Finals but Becker came out very drowsy and look fatigue for much of the first 2 sets. This was probably their 1990 Wimbledon finals match up. Becker said he couldn't sleep the night before and therefore... overdosed on sleeping pills.

So says Becker now.... Who knows if this is true? Sounds like a nice, convienent excuse. Becker "woke up" and took it to 5 sets, even up a break in the 5th and Stefan still came back and won! I give him a lot of credit for this win.

 

[California]

Becker wasn't fully awake for one of the Wimbledon finals so I wouldn't give Edberg too much credit for their 2-1 Wimby matchups. I don't remember exactly which Wimbledon Finals but Becker came out very drowsy and look fatigue for much of the first 2 sets. This was probably their 1990 Wimbledon finals match up. Becker said he couldn't sleep the night before and therefore... overdosed on sleeping pills.

Their career is very similar but I think Becker was more of a beast than Edberg. I mean a 25-10 H2H means you can literally kick the other guy's behind. But Edberg has more balance and range when it comes to grand slams appearances while most of Becker's grand slams were at Wimbledon. So in the end, I would rank them as equal. It balances out.

So says Becker now.... Who knows if this is true? Sounds like a nice, convienent excuse. Becker "woke up" and took it to 5 sets, even up a break in the 5th and Stefan still came back and won! I give him a lot of credit for this win.

 

[mattosgrant]

Edberg played horrible in the 89 Wimbledon final. Becker played much better in his 2 final losses to Edberg, than Edberg did in the 89 final.

The funny thing about Edberg vs Becker is while it seems overall Edberg should have the edge it seems surface by surface Becker should on all but clay (which is a nearly moot surface for both):

Grass- Becker has the bigger legacy at Wimbledon. Edberg did win 2 Australian Opens on grass, but I am not sure if Becker even played it while it was on grass.

Hard courts- Becker has an extra hard court slam, and Edberg never won the Australian on hard courts (even if mostly due to some bad luck). Edberg has better stats in other hard court events I believe.

Carpet- pretty obviously Becker comes ahead here.

Yet the 2 YE#1s would seem to lean it to Edberg, when both have 6 majors, even if everyone knows Becker was the real #1 of 89.

 

[fezer]

So says Becker now.... Who knows if this is true? Sounds like a nice, convienent excuse. Becker "woke up" and took it to 5 sets, even up a break in the 5th and Stefan still came back and won! I give him a lot of credit for this win.

i agree - with the first part. the sleeping pills story? who knows, if it's true. for me, becker was following the wrong tactics in the first 2 sets. he didnt use his strong first serve (no aces!!!), wanted more time to approach the net. edberg was returning well and sailed through the first sets. then becker brought his power game and was a break up in the fifth.
but i disagree with the thesis that edberg came back. becker let him back in the match by missing an easy volley for a 3-1 lead. i dont think becker would have lost, if he converted that point. so i think its more becker losing than edberg winning.
still an epic final. and one of many many missed chances by boris. i think it as edberg's last win. he had a walkover in paris later that year, but i think it was the last matchpoint that he converted vs becker...

 

[Thetouch]

Yeah Becker pretty much beat himself in that Wimbledon 90 final. I can´t remember when he ever lost a match by being a break up in the final set. I think he got nervous and was already picturing himself holding the trophy in his head. On the same day the World Cup Final between Germany and Argentina took place later and he wanted to fly to Rome and watch the game, so maybe he was getting a bit too thrilled being so close to win his 4th trophy at Wimbledon and then wittnessing his country battling or the World Cup.

As far as his sleeping pills story goes, he mentioned a couple of occasions when he used them, like in the Stockholm Open final in 1991 when he beat Edberg. He said he was walking through Stockholm until past midnight because he couldn´t sleep or something like that. I don´t know how accurate his claims are but judging some of his matches in the early 90´s he looked kind of sloppy in the beginning of many matches. I could swear whenever he faced Lendl, Lendl always won the first set very easy, like 6:1, but Becker then usually won the second set in a tie break and then the match (similar to some slam matches). ^^

 

[PMChambers]

Becker
Becker has better results.
Same Majors 6-6 but Edberg has 2 AO on Grass. It's not quiet the same level as Major, more of a ATP1000 field.
Becker has more YEC 3W-5F vs 1W-1F
Becker WCT 1W-1F vs 1F
Becker GSCup 1W vs 0
Becker S9 (Equ ATP1000) 13W-8F vs 8W-10F

Becker is better at big match tennis, he leads in everything worth leading.

I think Edberg gets picked because bias towards him being "nice" rather than his actual results. Becker did waste some of his potential, his matches at end of career where awesome even with his wrist injury. This level of mental strength earlier in his career would have assisted a lot, especially with fans instead of his shouting and mental beak downs.

Everyone seems to forget that Edberg was the only player to win the Junior Grand Slam

No we don't it just does not help his "professional" career case. Mark Kratzmann W 3 & 1 RU in 84 but it also does not elevate his professional career above a high of No.50.

 

[Thetouch]

Btw: Maybe somebody can answer this:

Yesterday I was watching the semi-final between Sampras and Agassi in the 1994 Masters Championship in Frankfurt. Agassi was ranked at No. 2 and had won some big tournaments, amongst the US Open in the last 5 months. Sampras beat Agassi and went to the final to beat Becker. It was stated that if Becker had beaten Sampras he would have ended the year as the new No. 2! How is that possible? Becker missed the first 2 Slams and made it only to the semis in Wimbledon. Just like Agassi he had a strong second half since Wimbledon but it seems kind of strange to me.

 

[70sHollywood]

I used to lean Edberg but now I think Becker. Probably.

One of the more surprising stats for me is that Becker ranks 4th in winning percentage v top 10 players in the open era. 65%, behind only Borg, Nadal and Federer. I don't know where Edberg ranks but it's not in the top 10 and his % is less than 53.

Here's a question - What was Edberg's best surface?

 

[mattosgrant]

Becker
Becker has better results.
Same Majors 6-6 but Edberg has 2 AO on Grass. It's not quiet the same level as Major, more of a ATP1000 field.
Becker has more YEC 3W-5F vs 1W-1F
Becker WCT 1W-1F vs 1F
Becker GSCup 1W vs 0
Becker S9 (Equ ATP1000) 13W-8F vs 8W-10F

Becker is better at big match tennis, he leads in everything worth leading.

I think Edberg gets picked because bias towards him being "nice" rather than his actual results. Becker did waste some of his potential, his matches at end of career where awesome even with his wrist injury. This level of mental strength earlier in his career would have assisted a lot, especially with fans instead of his shouting and mental beak downs.


No we don't it just does not help his "professional" career case. Mark Kratzmann W 3 & 1 RU in 84 but it also does not elevate his professional career above a high of No.50.

Actually reading all that I think I am swinging the other way now and would probably go Becker. You broke it down really well.

I was initially going with Edberg mostly due to his 2 YE#1s.

 

[timnz]

Who do you believe ranks higher all time: Becker or Edberg. I find this an intriguing comparision as I find them very close. Obviously unlike some of the others they both started in the era where all 4 majors were starting to be pretty much the be all and end all, and each won 6. Each has his advantages over the other.

I am always amazed when people say that Edberg should be rated higher when Becker's achievements were so much more than Edberg's.

Their Slam achievements are very similar to be sure - 6 Slams won each - Edberg making one more final 5 runner-ups to Edberg vs 4 for Becker. So not much in that at all. So then we need to look further afield for other differentiation.

Season end finals Indoor. Remember that indoor tennis was a big deal in the 1980s/1990s:

WTF's (ATP) - Becker won 3 and was runner-up in 4, Edberg won 1 and had no other runner-up. So clearly Becker miles ahead.
WCT Finals (WCT) - Becker won 1 and was runner-up in 1. Edberg won 0 and had 1 runner-up. So clearly Becker ahead.
Grand Slam Cup (ITF) - Becker won 1, Edberg won 0. So clearly Becker ahead.

H2H:

25 Becker: 10 Edberg - Becker miles ahead.

In important best of 5 set matches in Slams, Davis Cup, WTF Finals, WCT Finals, Super 9/Masters 1000 etc - 10 Becker: 5 Edberg - Becker miles ahead.

Becker has 13 Masters 1000 equivalents, Edberg has 8 - Becker miles ahead.

So I don't know why at all someone has Edberg ahead of Becker. To me Edberg is significantly behind Becker.

 

[timnz]

Actually Boris Becker really did look tired... like he had a hangover or something. He had so much admitted he fought alcohol and sleeping pill addiction. Just look at the match on YouTube and you'll see he appeared tired.

I've never drank alcohol but I have taken sleeping pills before and these pills do make you feel very drowsy the following morning. So yes I believe Boris. Anyway, he has a whopping 25-10 Head to Head count over Stefan. He's just the superior player between the 2 but doesn't make him the better player overall. I think Stefan had a more balance career.[/QUOTE]
.

What does that mean? Becker achieved far more in his career in terms of important wins. Refer previous thread

 

[mattosgrant]

My old friend helterskelter will love this topic. I hope he is back here soon.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Not sure how Lendl reaching so many extra slam finals can be called a farce. It's always better to lose in a final than an early round. IMO the 19 finals Lendl reached, especially considering how different the surfaces played in his day, is one of his greatest achievements.

 

[mattosgrant]

I agree reaching lots of slam finals (even losing many) is good. However I would rather have an 8-7 record in slam finals than Connors than an 8-11 one like Lendl if forced to choose. Having a clear losing record in slam finals for someone with that many slams is embarassing.

 

[California]

I used to lean Edberg but now I think Becker. Probably.

One of the more surprising stats for me is that Becker ranks 4th in winning percentage v top 10 players in the open era. 65%, behind only Borg, Nadal and Federer. I don't know where Edberg ranks but it's not in the top 10 and his % is less than 53.

Here's a question - What was Edberg's best surface?

I would say Stefan's best surface was grass, he won 4 majors on grass and lost in a Wimby final to Becker on grass.

 

[timnz]

Obviously, I have to chime in on this. It pains may to say this but Edberg had the better career. Edberg's wins over Becker at Wimbledon outweigh all the other stats or insight one can come up with and breaks the otherwise virtual tie. Even though I love Edberg, I hate Edberg. Agree with corners that Becker's peak is quite a few notches higher than Edberg, not including volleys.

Why be in pain? It is clear that Becker achieved considerably more than Edberg. Their slam record is very similar but - In best of 5 set matches Becker lead Edberg 10 to 5 including Slams, Davis Cup, WTF, WCT Finals, Super 9/Masters 1000 matches. Becker had 5 season end final wins (WTF/WCT/GSC) vs 1 to Edberg. 13 Super 9/Masters 1000 vs 8 for Edberg. Overall H2H 25-10. I am sorry, Edberg winning 1 more set in the 1990 Wimbledon final doesn't exceed 4 more season end final wins, 5 Masters 1000's and the massive H2H shortfall.

I have no idea why people put Edberg ahead of Becker at all. Sounds like you would prefer not to. So why do it? Becker's career achievements out shone Edberg.

 

[timnz]

Why be in pain? It is clear that Becker achieved considerably more than Edberg. Their slam record is very similar but - In best of 5 set matches Becker lead Edberg 10 to 5 including Slams, Davis Cup, WTF, WCT Finals, Super 9/Masters 1000 matches. Becker had 5 season end final wins (WTF/WCT/GSC) vs 1 to Edberg. 13 Super 9/Masters 1000 vs 8 for Edberg. Overall H2H 25-10. I am sorry, Edberg winning 1 more set in the 1990 Wimbledon final doesn't exceed 4 more season end final wins, 5 Masters 1000's and the massive H2H shortfall.

I have no idea why people put Edberg ahead of Becker at all. Sounds like you would prefer not to. So why do it? Becker's career achievements out shone Edberg.

 

[timnz]

For those who think that Edberg vs Becker at Wimbledon, 2 vs 1 - outshone Beckers extra - 4 Season end final victories, 5 Masters 1000 victories, Davis Cup victories over Edberg, WCT Final victory over Edberg, 10-5 record in Becker's favour in important best of 5 set matches - then consider this.

Does that 2-1 advantage exceed the fact that Becker has 1 extra Wimbledon title and 3 extra runner-up trophies? If Wimbledon is your only criteria for judging. Sorry, no.

 

[mattennis]

I am always amazed when people say that Edberg should be rated higher when Becker's achievements were so much more than Edberg's.

Their Slam achievements are very similar to be sure - 6 Slams won each - Edberg making one more final 5 runner-ups to Edberg vs 4 for Becker. So not much in that at all. So then we need to look further afield for other differentiation.

Season end finals Indoor. Remember that indoor tennis was a big deal in the 1980s/1990s:

WTF's (ATP) - Becker won 3 and was runner-up in 4, Edberg won 1 and had no other runner-up. So clearly Becker miles ahead.
WCT Finals (WCT) - Becker won 1 and was runner-up in 1. Edberg won 0 and had 1 runner-up. So clearly Becker ahead.
Grand Slam Cup (ITF) - Becker won 1, Edberg won 0. So clearly Becker ahead.

H2H:

25 Becker: 10 Edberg - Becker miles ahead.

In important best of 5 set matches in Slams, Davis Cup, WTF Finals, WCT Finals, Super 9/Masters 1000 etc - 10 Becker: 5 Edberg - Becker miles ahead.

Becker has 13 Masters 1000 equivalents, Edberg has 8 - Becker miles ahead.

So I don't know why at all someone has Edberg ahead of Becker. To me Edberg is significantly behind Becker.

Just to point out some minor errors:

Becker lost five finals of the WTF: 1985 to Lendl, 1986 again to Lendl, 1989 to Edberg, 1994 to Sampras and 1996 to Sampras.
Edberg lost one final of the WTF: 1990 to Agassi.